arXiv AI

Algorithm Design and Physician Liability

arXiv:2608. 13618v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A single clinical algorithm can deliver unequal accuracy across patient groups, and concern about such disparity has grown as artificial intelligence (AI) spreads through clinical decision-making.

arXiv AI
Aug 5

Optimal Liability Design for Medical AI

arXiv:2608. 03114v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into medical decision-making, yet its liability implications remain complex, particularly when physicians differ in diagnostic skills and their quality is unobservable.

By Rui Mao, Tingliang Huang, Houcai Shen
arXiv AI
Jun 2

Algorithmic Authority and the Clinical Standard of Care

arXiv:2606. 00044v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of artificial intelligence into clinical medicine creates a fundamental tension between algorithmic probabilistic reasoning and the experiential intuition of expert physicians; applying Lawrence Lessig's \enquote{Code is Law} framework, I argue that the architecture of clinical AI systems already functions as de facto medical regulation, reshaping liability and the standard of care.

By Aizierjiang Aiersilan
arXiv AI
Aug 25

The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing

The paper discusses how autonomous AI systems are moving from advisory to agentic roles in medication prescribing, citing recent U.S. legislation and a Utah pilot program. It argues that three architectural features—calibrated per‑prediction confidence, clear differentiation between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, and inferential transparency—are essential for safe autonomous prescribing. A survey of 136 U.S. clinicians shows they require a confidence‑based escalation mechanism, prefer different handling of uncertainty types, and will only accept liability when transparency allows informed decision‑making.

By Eileanor LaRocco, Sarah Tan, Adarsh Subbaswamy, Anne Andrews, Andrew Taylor, Cree Gaskin, Chirag Agarwal
arXiv AI
Sep 2

AI Morbidity and Mortality: A Framework for Clinical AI Failure Review

AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M) is a structured, blameless framework designed to review clinical AI failures. It combines standardized case intake, evidence preservation, investigator reconstruction, tool‑in‑loop attribution, and corrective‑action tracking, classifying each event across four linked dimensions: Trigger, Mechanism, Clinical Pathway, and Corrective Action. The authors demonstrate the framework with five outpatient medication and clinical decision‑support cases, achieving full agreement among reviewers on all classification axes.

By Paulius Mui, Dean F. Sittig, Steve Labkoff, Sanjay Basu
arXiv AI
Aug 26

FLARE: A Systematic, Uncertainty-Aware Framework for Evidence-Based Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare

FLARE is a systematic, uncertainty‑aware framework that evaluates the financial and operational implications of adopting AI in healthcare. It integrates fuzzy logic, time‑driven activity‑based costing, and return‑on‑investment analysis to estimate costs of clinical service delivery, AI development and operation, and the economic impact of workflow integration. A case study on AI‑assisted large vessel occlusion detection in the CT stroke pathway demonstrated that FLARE can quantify conventional pathway costs, AI‑related costs, and AI‑enabled savings, identifying a break‑even threshold of about 3,992 patients per year and a positive first‑year ROI at typical stroke volumes of 5,000 patients.

By Jacob Idoko, Siddhartha Paudel, Mariana Bento, Roberto Souza, Gouri Ginde
arXiv AI
Jul 15

First, do NOHARM: a medical safety benchmark and randomized study of physician and AI teaming on clinical consultations

arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.

By David Wu, Fateme Nateghi Haredasht, Saloni Kumar Maharaj, Priyank Jain, Jessica Tran, Matthew Gwiazdon, Arjun Rustagi, Jenelle Jindal, Jacob M. Koshy, Vinay Kadiyala, Anup Agarwal, Bassman Tappuni, Brianna French, Sirus Jesudasen, Christopher V. Cosgriff, Rebanta Chakraborty, Jillian Caldwell, Susan Ziolkowski, David J. Iberri, Robert Diep, Rahul S. Dalal, Kira L. Newman, Kristin Galetta, J. Carl Pallais, Nancy Wei, Kathleen M. Buchheit, David I. Hong, Vartan Pahalyants, Ernest Y. Lee, Allen Shih, Tamara B. Kaplan, Vishnu Ravi, Sarita Khemani, Thomas A. Buckley, April S. Liang, Daniel Shirvani, Advait Patil, Nicholas Marshall, Kanav Chopra, Joel Koh, Adi Badhwar, Anastasia Perez, Austin J. Schoeffler, Mahbuba Tusty, Chase M. Walton, Liam G. McCoy, David J. H. Wu, Yingjie Weng, Sumant Ranji, Kevin Schulman, Nigam H. Shah, Jason Hom, Arnold Milstein, Arjun K. Manrai, Adam Rodman, Jonathan H. Chen, Ethan Goh
arXiv AI
Aug 17

Whose doctor does the AI recommend? An algorithm audit of reputation and demographic signals in large language model-assisted physician choice

arXiv:2608. 14399v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Patients increasingly ask large language model (LLM) assistants which doctor to see, making these systems AI infomediaries: algorithms that intermediate one person's choice among other people and thereby decide, silently and at scale, which physicians become visible.

By Syeda Anshrah Gillani, Mirza Samad Ahmed Baig
arXiv AI
Jul 1

Agentic AI Enhances Physician Trust in Clinical Decision Making

arXiv:2606. 30658v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical AI has shifted from reasoning to agentic AI, a new paradigm that autonomously invokes external tools during reasoning, rendering intermediate reasoning steps and tool outputs transparent to users.

By Zhiling Yan, Zhe Fang, David J King, Ann Pongsakul, Eashan Adhikarla, Hui Ren, Sunyang Fu, Quanzheng Li, Lifang He, Xiang Li, Hongfang Liu, Yonghui Wu, Lichao Sun